Dr. Wolfgang Smith debunks evolution
and...@my-deja.com
in mathematics, physics, and philosophy. Two years later he took an
M.S. in theoretical physics at Purdue University, following which he
joined the aerodynamics group at Bell Aircraft Corporation. He was the
first to investigate the effect of a foreign gas on aerodynamic
heating, and his papers on the effect of diffusion fields provided the
key to the solution of the re-entry problem for space flight. After
receiving a Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University, Dr. Smith
held professorial positions at M.I.T., U.C.L.A., and Oregon State
University till his retirement in 1992. He has published extensively on
mathematical topics relating to algebraic and differential topology.
magazine: Can you give an example of a prominent scientistic belief?
Dr. Smith: As a major example I would mention the Darwinian theory of
evolution, which (contrary to official belief) is not in fact a
scientific hypothesis corroborated by empirical facts, but a
philosophic tenet masquerading in scientific garb. As one molecular
biologist has put it, Darwinism is ultimately "no more and no less than
the great cosmogenetic myth of the twentieth century." ...
http://www.innerexplorations.com/philtext/an.htm
Andy
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
leonardo dasso
<and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92nsd3$f9u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Many thanks for the contribution, Andy. Dr Smith's opinions are most welcome
and appreciated. There is no doubt in my mind that studies on the effect of
a foreign gas on aerodynamic heating, and differential topology are by far
the best credentials to discuss biological research.
If there was any (minor) doubt in my mind about the relevance of Dr
Wolfgang Smith's opinions regarding evolution, another question from the
same "interview", to be found in the webpage quoted above (and that -by the
way- you should not have omitted, considering its relevance) states:
"IE: What advice do you have for the seeker of truth?
Wolfgang Smith: Know from the start that all truth derives from the Word of
God and thus partakes of the sacred. Cultivate purity, knowing that this
constitutes a precondition to the reception of truth. Learn once more to
revere what is worthy of reverence. Cast off the profane and irreverent
persona of the modern intellectual, and cultivate the spirit of
discipleship. Learn to receive the gift of faith; know that faith is the
seed of wisdom."
Wise and profound words, if I've heard any.
Still, if any doubt would remain lurking in my mind about the seriousness of
all this stuff, it would suffice to observe that the above "interview" is to
be found in the webpage named:
"INNER EXPLORATIONS
Where Christian mysticism, theology and metaphysics meet Eastern religions,
Jungian psychology and a new sense of the earth."
Yes, that's quite a heady mixture.
Regards
leo
rich hammett
> Wolfgang Smith graduated at age 18 from Cornell University with a B.A.
Is this the crackpot from the New Scientist article last year? (I mean
wolfgang, not andy)
rich
> http://www.innerexplorations.com/philtext/an.htm
> Andy
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
catshark
Typical Andy "argument from authority". Just because some guy has some
titles behind his name and even may have done some good work in some
field doesn't make him an expert on everything. It especially doesn't
make that unnamed "molecular biologist" (Behe, by any chance?) an
expert. And even if he was an expert, that don't make him right in
this case.
It is also amusing to see where this quote came from. "Inner
Explorations", self-described as: "Where Christian mysticism, theology
and metaphysics meet Eastern religions, Jungian psychology and a new
sense of the earth." With the railing Roger has been doing about Freud
lately, you better not let him know your flirting with Jung, Andy!
--
J. Pieret
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Jon Fleming
Gee, no qualifications in any biological sciences, hum?
Dr. Wolfgang Smith is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute
(<http://www.discovery.org/crsc/fellows/index.html>). He appears to
have an agenda; from the same interview that Andy quoted
(<http://www.innerexplorations.com/philtext/an.htm>):
"IE: What advice do you have for the seeker of truth?
WS: Know from the start that all truth derives from the Word of God
and thus partakes of the sacred. Cultivate purity, knowing that this
constitutes a precondition to the reception of truth. Learn once more
to revere what is worthy of reverence. Cast off the profane and
irreverent persona of the modern intellectual, and cultivate the
spirit of discipleship. Learn to receive the gift of faith; know that
faith is the seed of wisdom."
IOW, a creationist with impressive but irrelevant credentials making
the same old unsupported assertion. Very impressive evidence!
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
WickedDyno
<hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote:
> and...@my-deja.com is alleged to have said:
> > Wolfgang Smith graduated at age 18 from Cornell University with a B.A.
>
> Is this the crackpot from the New Scientist article last year? (I mean
> wolfgang, not andy)
>
> rich
>
> > in mathematics, physics, and philosophy. Two years later he took an
> > M.S. in theoretical physics at Purdue University, following which he
> > joined the aerodynamics group at Bell Aircraft Corporation. He was the
> > first to investigate the effect of a foreign gas on aerodynamic
> > heating, and his papers on the effect of diffusion fields provided the
> > key to the solution of the re-entry problem for space flight. After
> > receiving a Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University, Dr. Smith
> > held professorial positions at M.I.T., U.C.L.A., and Oregon State
> > University till his retirement in 1992. He has published extensively on
> > mathematical topics relating to algebraic and differential topology.
>
> > magazine: Can you give an example of a prominent scientistic belief?
>
> > Dr. Smith: As a major example I would mention the Darwinian theory of
> > evolution, which (contrary to official belief) is not in fact a
> > scientific hypothesis corroborated by empirical facts, but a
> > philosophic tenet masquerading in scientific garb. As one molecular
> > biologist has put it, Darwinism is ultimately "no more and no less than
> > the great cosmogenetic myth of the twentieth century." ...
>
> > http://www.innerexplorations.com/philtext/an.htm
I am ashamed on behalf of all of Cornell.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
rokimo...@my-deja.com
Andy really blew this one or he is a troll trying to make the
creationist look bad. Thanks Andy, for showing us how much value we
can place in the opinions of creationist experts.
Ron Okimoto
Paul J. Gans
> http://www.innerexplorations.com/philtext/an.htm
> Andy
I have a friend who has degrees in literature, art,
and music. He thinks mathematics is totally wrong.
---- Paul J. Gans
Adam Noel Harris
:Wolfgang Smith graduated at age 18 from Cornell University with a B.A.
I always find it amusing that before an authority is quoted to dismiss
evolution, an extensive list of degrees and qualifications is given. Why
be so impressed with this?
There are thousands of scientists with similar credentials who think
Wolfgang Smith is full of crap, or at least that his ideas on evolution
are such.
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Boikat
>
> and...@my-deja.com <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> :Wolfgang Smith graduated at age 18 from Cornell University with a B.A.
> :in mathematics, physics, and philosophy. Two years later he took an
> :M.S. in theoretical physics at Purdue University, following which he
> :joined the aerodynamics group at Bell Aircraft Corporation. He was the
> :first to investigate the effect of a foreign gas on aerodynamic
> :heating, and his papers on the effect of diffusion fields provided the
> :key to the solution of the re-entry problem for space flight. After
> :receiving a Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University, Dr. Smith
> :held professorial positions at M.I.T., U.C.L.A., and Oregon State
> :University till his retirement in 1992. He has published extensively on
> :mathematical topics relating to algebraic and differential topology.
> :
> :magazine: Can you give an example of a prominent scientistic belief?
> :
> :Dr. Smith: As a major example I would mention the Darwinian theory of
> :evolution, which (contrary to official belief) is not in fact a
> :scientific hypothesis corroborated by empirical facts, but a
> :philosophic tenet masquerading in scientific garb. As one molecular
> :biologist has put it, Darwinism is ultimately "no more and no less than
> :the great cosmogenetic myth of the twentieth century." ...
> :
> :http://www.innerexplorations.com/philtext/an.htm
>
> I always find it amusing that before an authority is quoted to dismiss
> evolution, an extensive list of degrees and qualifications is given. Why
> be so impressed with this?
Especially when "Biology" does not appear to be on
the list of degrees and qualifications.
Boikat
Mike Haubrich
just an opinion. Even smart people can have stupid opinions.
<and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92nsd3$f9u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
thewilkins
I have a friend with a PhD from Cambridge University in comparative
religion. His family is involved in the Catholic church at a high level
(his uncle is head of the Vatican university, whatever the hell it's
called). He has published a textbook on comparative religion. Now my
well-qualified friend has expressed to me doubts about the "germ theory
of disease" arguing that it is just a philosophical tenet masquerading
as science, and even going so far as to state that Pasteur recanted on
his deathbed. By andylogic, we should accept that germs do not cause
disease and that my friend's alternative - that ill health is caused by
spiritual miasma - is correct.
Forgive me if I find the Wolfgang Smith argument as unconvincing.
--
John Wilkins at home
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Jonathan Stone
Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
[... snip Schlafly text ]
>
>I have a friend who has degrees in literature, art,
>and music. He thinks mathematics is totally wrong.
>
Mathematics is a deductive system. if your friend can
find bugs in proofs of theorems, more power to him.
Or you mean, like, he doesn't buy the axiom of choice?
--
Happy New Year to all. Even Nyikos.
Schlafly
news:92op7q$epp$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
> >I have a friend who has degrees in literature, art,
> >and music. He thinks mathematics is totally wrong.
>
> Mathematics is a deductive system. if your friend can
> find bugs in proofs of theorems, more power to him.
That's right. You are allowed to criticize math, even if you don't
have a degree in it.
stev...@my-deja.com
assertion unsupported even by alleged facts or alleged logic. I'm
still looking for the actual argument.
Maybe you could point it out?
>
> --
> John Wilkins at home
> <http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
>
-- Steven J.
Jonathan Stone
Roger, Roger, Roger. Unmarked snips which change the meaning of
text are, on Usenet, the equivalent of deliberate falsehood.
To restore (from memory) the original:
}Or, like, you mean he doesn't buy the axiom of choice?
The point being, saying "maths is all wrong" is futile, unless your
criticism is well-grounded grounds for it. Since mathematics is a
deductive system, the only well-grounded criticism is to reject the
axioms (famously, Euclid's fifth postulate); or to show a logical
flaw in a proof. Much the same argument holds for science:
Either come up with a better theory (one whic explains more phenomena
or suggests and predicts new experiments more accurately than the
existing theory); or come up with data which an existing theory cannot
explain (in the hope that theorists will be prodded to find a new
theory which explains all previous phenomena plus the unexplained result).
catshark
some support for the criticism! (Something you should sometime try
providing for a change, BTW.)
Andy chose the name for this thread. But what he pointed to was not a
debunking of evolution. It was, at best, some fuzzy "philosophy", some
vague assertions about evolution (and quantum mechanics!) and a
reference to an unnamed "molecular biologist". Therefore, Andy's post
was nothing more than a bare appeal to Smith's "authority", a fact
confirmed by Andy's trotting out of Smith's list of degrees. It was
*Andy* who put Smith's qualifications (or noticeable lack thereof) in
play. It is only fair comment for people to point out that there were
none in the list *Andy*, himself, supplied!
--
J. Pieret
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Mark VandeWettering
You are allowed to criticize almost everything in this country
Roger, thanks to that little thing called "The First Amendment".
Nevertheless, I betcha the friend mentioned above hasn't gotten
very many papers accepted to math journals...
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Schlafly
news:1emk0jk.6e0gne1yik29sN%thewi...@bigpond.com...
> I have a friend with a PhD from Cambridge University in comparative
> religion. His family is involved in the Catholic church at a high level
> (his uncle is head of the Vatican university, whatever the hell it's
> called). He has published a textbook on comparative religion. Now my
> well-qualified friend has expressed to me doubts about the "germ theory
> of disease" arguing that it is just a philosophical tenet masquerading
> as science, and even going so far as to state that Pasteur recanted on
> his deathbed. By andylogic, we should accept that germs do not cause
> disease and that my friend's alternative - that ill health is caused by
> spiritual miasma - is correct.
Andy is not saying that every theory from a PhD is correct. Your friend is
not expressing Catholic doctrine, but some personal skepticism about
a well-accepted scientific theory.
Schlafly
news:slrn94vdde...@elaine27.Stanford.EDU...
> I always find it amusing that before an authority is quoted to dismiss
> evolution, an extensive list of degrees and qualifications is given. Why
> be so impressed with this?
Apparently it is what impresses you enough to consider him an "authority".
WickedDyno
<roger...@deja.com> wrote:
You missed the point again, Roger.
WickedDyno
Of course. This is a free country. Of course, you're able to do that
with all fields of science and intellect, including evolutionary biology
(which of course you were implying was not the case). That
professionals in the field have no obligation to give your criticism
significant attention does not detract from that freedom.
thewilkins
No shit. Likewise and contrariwise, Dr Wolfgang Smith is not expressing
an informed and authoritative academic view about evolution, but some
personal inability to comprehend a well-accepted scientific theory.
*Hemidactylus*
> in mathematics, physics, and philosophy. Two years later he took an
> M.S. in theoretical physics at Purdue University, following which he
> joined the aerodynamics group at Bell Aircraft Corporation. He was the
> first to investigate the effect of a foreign gas on aerodynamic
> heating, and his papers on the effect of diffusion fields provided the
> key to the solution of the re-entry problem for space flight. After
> receiving a Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University, Dr. Smith
> held professorial positions at M.I.T., U.C.L.A., and Oregon State
> University till his retirement in 1992. He has published extensively on
> mathematical topics relating to algebraic and differential topology.
>
And part of what you omitted which would gives us an inkling of Dr. Smith's
biases:
"From the start, however, Smith has evinced a dominant interest in
metaphysics and theology. Early in life he acquired a taste for Plato and the
Neoplatonists, and sojourned in India to gain acquaintance with the Vedantic
tradition. Later he devoted himself to the study of theology, and began his
career as a Catholic metaphysical author."
>
> magazine: Can you give an example of a prominent scientistic belief?
>
> Dr. Smith: As a major example I would mention the Darwinian theory of
> evolution, which (contrary to official belief) is not in fact a
> scientific hypothesis corroborated by empirical facts, but a
> philosophic tenet masquerading in scientific garb. As one molecular
> biologist has put it, Darwinism is ultimately "no more and no less than
> the great cosmogenetic myth of the twentieth century." ...
>
Is this supposed to be a debunking? It is philosophical tenet of natural
theology which serves as the interpretative framework upon which intelligent
design is placed. This is a masquerade.
Your ellipsis implied that there was more to this alleged debunking. When I
clicked onto the URL, I was disappointed.
> http://www.innerexplorations.com/philtext/an.htm
Adam Noel Harris
:Adam Noel Harris <ad...@stanford.edu.XX> wrote in message
He was being used as an authority by your brother, whose arguments
apparently impress you. You may now follow up to note that I called
what Andy posts "arguments."
leonardo dasso
Schlafly <roger...@deja.com> wrote in message
news:92ot2l$ram$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
you'd better shut up.
regards
leo
Nando Ronteltap
>Wolfgang Smith graduated at age 18 from Cornell University with a B.A.
>in mathematics, physics, and philosophy. Two years later he took an
>M.S. in theoretical physics at Purdue University, following which he
>joined the aerodynamics group at Bell Aircraft Corporation. He was the
>first to investigate the effect of a foreign gas on aerodynamic
>heating, and his papers on the effect of diffusion fields provided the
>key to the solution of the re-entry problem for space flight. After
>receiving a Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University, Dr. Smith
>held professorial positions at M.I.T., U.C.L.A., and Oregon State
>University till his retirement in 1992. He has published extensively on
>mathematical topics relating to algebraic and differential topology.
Alebraic and differential topology are of of use in molecular biology.
>magazine: Can you give an example of a prominent scientistic belief?
>
>Dr. Smith: As a major example I would mention the Darwinian theory of
>evolution, which (contrary to official belief) is not in fact a
>scientific hypothesis corroborated by empirical facts, but a
>philosophic tenet masquerading in scientific garb. As one molecular
>biologist has put it, Darwinism is ultimately "no more and no less than
>the great cosmogenetic myth of the twentieth century." ...
>
>http://www.innerexplorations.com/philtext/an.htm
It's clear that for all the wacko ideas that have been included in
Darwinist works of science as demonstrative of Darwinism that this
concept is suspect. Especially Darwinists' continuous use of normative
terminology in their Darwinism, like good, bad, greed, selfish,
altruist etc, makes it suspect for violating neutrality in science. So
it could likely be the case that there is something fundamentally
wrong with Darwinism, but then Darwinists have never actually decided
on what Darwinism is. To see if all versions are false or not would
require there to be some actual agreed up on conceptual model of
Darwinism, but this simply does not exist. So my guess is Dr. Smith
has falsified one kind of Darwinism, I would guess the progressivist
kind, but not all kinds. It's impossible to falsify Darwinism because
in so far as Darwinists actually make an effort to clarify their
conceptualizations in their use of natural selection (they normally
don't), they have innumerable versions of it.
Nando
catshark
Then what the heck is he saying? Andy called it a "debunking" but what
he pointed to was nothing more, at best, than a statement of personal
belief without any sort of support except that unnamed microbiologist.
And why did Andy start out by reciting Smith's degrees, if he didn't
intend them to be a major part of his argument?
--
J. Pieret
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Richard Harter
<n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>Wolfgang Smith graduated at age 18 from Cornell University with a B.A.
>>in mathematics, physics, and philosophy. Two years later he took an
>>M.S. in theoretical physics at Purdue University, following which he
>>joined the aerodynamics group at Bell Aircraft Corporation. He was the
>>first to investigate the effect of a foreign gas on aerodynamic
>>heating, and his papers on the effect of diffusion fields provided the
>>key to the solution of the re-entry problem for space flight. After
>>receiving a Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University, Dr. Smith
>>held professorial positions at M.I.T., U.C.L.A., and Oregon State
>>University till his retirement in 1992. He has published extensively on
>>mathematical topics relating to algebraic and differential topology.
>
>Alebraic and differential topology are of of use in molecular biology.
Oh, Lordy, Lordy, it was a blessing that my coffee cup was empty. I
suppose that they are particularly useful in determining what proteins
are made of. Chortle, snort, chuckle.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
Leviticus summarized in one sentence -
There are things man is not meant to know.
Nando Ronteltap
>On 1 Jan 2001 14:1224 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>>Alebraic and differential topology are of of use in molecular biology.
>
>Oh, Lordy, Lordy, it was a blessing that my coffee cup was empty. I
>suppose that they are particularly useful in determining what proteins
>are made of. Chortle, snort, chuckle.
You should do a websearch on "differential topology" and "molecular
biology".
Nando
and...@my-deja.com
You may disagree with Dr. Wolfgang Smith, but your claim that he has
an "inability to comprehend a well-accepted scientific theory" is
unpersuasive.
Andy
and...@my-deja.com
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On 1 Jan 2001 14:12:24 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
> <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>
> >and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >>Wolfgang Smith graduated at age 18 from Cornell University with a
B.A.
> >>in mathematics, physics, and philosophy. Two years later he took an
> >>M.S. in theoretical physics at Purdue University, following which he
> >>joined the aerodynamics group at Bell Aircraft Corporation. He was
the
> >>first to investigate the effect of a foreign gas on aerodynamic
> >>heating, and his papers on the effect of diffusion fields provided
the
> >>key to the solution of the re-entry problem for space flight. After
> >>receiving a Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University, Dr. Smith
> >>held professorial positions at M.I.T., U.C.L.A., and Oregon State
> >>University till his retirement in 1992. He has published
extensively on
> >>mathematical topics relating to algebraic and differential topology.
> >
> >Alebraic and differential topology are of of use in molecular
biology.
>
> Oh, Lordy, Lordy, it was a blessing that my coffee cup was empty. I
> suppose that they are particularly useful in determining what proteins
> are made of. Chortle, snort, chuckle.
Biochemistry has not been kind to Darwinism. I see why you want to
pretend molecular biology does not exist.
and...@my-deja.com
Leo, we have free speech in the US. Dr. Smith can criticize Darwinism,
whether others find it interesting or not.
In light of the hysteria in this thread, one could hardly question the
relevance and impact of Dr. Smith's observation. Does anyone have an
intelligent criticism of it?
Richard Harter
<n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>On 1 Jan 2001 14:1224 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
>><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>
>
>>>Alebraic and differential topology are of of use in molecular biology.
>>
>>Oh, Lordy, Lordy, it was a blessing that my coffee cup was empty. I
>>suppose that they are particularly useful in determining what proteins
>>are made of. Chortle, snort, chuckle.
>
>You should do a websearch on "differential topology" and "molecular
>biology".
Chuckles, you are really stupid. The fact that results from field A
are of use in field B does not in any imply that a specialist in field
A understands much about field B. The real irony, though, is that we
were treated for several years to the spectacle of a specialist in
topology who blundered about in molecular biology.
Jonathan Stone
Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>On 1 Jan 2001 15:54:50 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>
>>c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>On 1 Jan 2001 14:1224 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
>>><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Alebraic and differential topology are of of use in molecular biology.
>>>
>>>Oh, Lordy, Lordy, it was a blessing that my coffee cup was empty. I
>>>suppose that they are particularly useful in determining what proteins
>>>are made of. Chortle, snort, chuckle.
>>
>>You should do a websearch on "differential topology" and "molecular
>>biology".
>
>Chuckles, you are really stupid. The fact that results from field A
>are of use in field B does not in any imply that a specialist in field
>A understands much about field B. The real irony, though, is that we
>were treated for several years to the spectacle of a specialist in
>topology who blundered about in molecular biology.
And in organic chem, and embryology, and interstellar spacecraft design,
and probability theory, and ...
Jonathan Stone
Yes, its the Modern Synthesis which gave rise to Neo-Darwinism.
I thought you thought that was a bad thing?
Nando Ronteltap
>On 1 Jan 2001 15:54:50 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>
>>c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>On 1 Jan 2001 14:1224 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
>>><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Alebraic and differential topology are of of use in molecular biology.
>>>
>>>Oh, Lordy, Lordy, it was a blessing that my coffee cup was empty. I
>>>suppose that they are particularly useful in determining what proteins
>>>are made of. Chortle, snort, chuckle.
>>
>>You should do a websearch on "differential topology" and "molecular
>>biology".
>
>Chuckles, you are really stupid. The fact that results from field A
>are of use in field B does not in any imply that a specialist in field
>A understands much about field B.
Huh? It does actually, you are the one that's really stupid I'm sure.
> The real irony, though, is that we
>were treated for several years to the spectacle of a specialist in
>topology who blundered about in molecular biology.
He didn't do anything in molecular biology AFAIK, but he could have
considering his knowledge of differential topology. In any case what
matters here is his knowledge of philosophy, and by it, I guess, he
falsified progressivist Darwinism. So then he should be congratulated.
Nando
Richard Harter
Ah, the fatuous fathead pokes his oar in and demonstrates his famed
incapacity to understand what he reads. You needn't have bothered to
give a demonstration - everyone already knows that you a fool.
Jonathan Stone
Yes; He's predujudiced, he's speaking outside his area of expertise,
and he doesn't understand what he's trying to criticize.
Jon Fleming
>In article <92qhf5$b09$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
> "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
>>
>> Schlafly <roger...@deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:92ot2l$ram$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
>> > Jonathan Stone <jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
>> > news:92op7q$epp$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
>> > > >I have a friend who has degrees in literature, art,
>> > > >and music. He thinks mathematics is totally wrong.
>> > >
>> > > Mathematics is a deductive system. if your friend can
>> > > find bugs in proofs of theorems, more power to him.
>> >
>> > That's right. You are allowed to criticize math, even if you don't
>> > have a degree in it.
>
>> Yes, but only as long as you have something interesting to say.
>Otherwise,
>> you'd better shut up.
>
>Leo, we have free speech in the US. Dr. Smith can criticize Darwinism,
>whether others find it interesting or not.
>
>In light of the hysteria in this thread,
Wow, you have an awfully low hysteria threshold.
> one could hardly question the
>relevance and impact of Dr. Smith's observation. Does anyone have an
>intelligent criticism of it?
One could hardly question the relevance, but I question the impact.
As do others.
I admit I didn't _criticize_ his observation in my first post, I just
posted a few relevant facts.
I think that Mike Haubrish gave a rational, calm criticism in
<http://x61.deja.com/%5BST_rn=ps%5D/getdoc.xp?AN=710520939&CONTEXT=978389289.1628241956&hitnum=10>:
"Seems more a dismissal than a debunking. Not based on any new
evidence, just an opinion. Even smart people can have stupid
opinions."
>
>Andy
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
Dick C.
How can anyone make an intelligent criticism of something as unintelligent
as his "observation"?
Inspite of your emotional appeals, Smith's so called criticisms are
not based upon knowledge of the theory, or even his knowledge of science
and math. Rather it is based upon his particular religious views.
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Neil W Rickert
>Biochemistry has not been kind to Darwinism. I see why you want to
>pretend molecular biology does not exist.
Biochemistry has nothing to say about Darwinism. It might be
relevant to neo-Darwinism, but not to Darwinism. Or don't you
understand the difference?
Richard Harter
<n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>On 1 Jan 2001 15:54:50 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
>><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>>On 1 Jan 2001 14:1224 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
>>>><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Alebraic and differential topology are of of use in molecular biology.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, Lordy, Lordy, it was a blessing that my coffee cup was empty. I
>>>>suppose that they are particularly useful in determining what proteins
>>>>are made of. Chortle, snort, chuckle.
>>>
>>>You should do a websearch on "differential topology" and "molecular
>>>biology".
>>
>>Chuckles, you are really stupid. The fact that results from field A
>>are of use in field B does not in any imply that a specialist in field
>>A understands much about field B.
>
>Huh? It does actually, you are the one that's really stupid I'm sure.
The bizarre thing is that you probably believe that it does.
>> The real irony, though, is that we
>>were treated for several years to the spectacle of a specialist in
>>topology who blundered about in molecular biology.
>
>He didn't do anything in molecular biology AFAIK, but he could have
>considering his knowledge of differential topology. In any case what
>matters here is his knowledge of philosophy, and by it, I guess, he
>falsified progressivist Darwinism. So then he should be congratulated.
That sound you hear is the whoosh as the reference goes completely
over Nando's head.
Nando Ronteltap
>On 1 Jan 2001 17:49:53 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>>Huh? It does actually, you are the one that's really stupid I'm sure.
>
>The bizarre thing is that you probably believe that it does.
Yes! Since molecular biologists use differential topology, someone
wellversed in differential topology could be a good molecular
biologists.
>>> The real irony, though, is that we
>>>were treated for several years to the spectacle of a specialist in
>>>topology who blundered about in molecular biology.
>>
>>He didn't do anything in molecular biology AFAIK, but he could have
>>considering his knowledge of differential topology. In any case what
>>matters here is his knowledge of philosophy, and by it, I guess, he
>>falsified progressivist Darwinism. So then he should be congratulated.
>
>That sound you hear is the whoosh as the reference goes completely
>over Nando's head.
What reference? Your homepage? Don't let your nerdiness get in the way
of making a clear argument Richard.
Nando
and...@my-deja.com
Most of biochemistry was discovered after the "modern synthesis".
Jon Fleming
<n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>On 1 Jan 2001 15:54:50 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
>><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>>On 1 Jan 2001 14:1224 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
>>>><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Alebraic and differential topology are of of use in molecular biology.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, Lordy, Lordy, it was a blessing that my coffee cup was empty. I
>>>>suppose that they are particularly useful in determining what proteins
>>>>are made of. Chortle, snort, chuckle.
>>>
>>>You should do a websearch on "differential topology" and "molecular
>>>biology".
>>
>>Chuckles, you are really stupid. The fact that results from field A
>>are of use in field B does not in any imply that a specialist in field
>>A understands much about field B.
>
>Huh? It does actually, you are the one that's really stupid I'm sure.
So number theorists are all experts in quantum mechanics?
>
>> The real irony, though, is that we
>>were treated for several years to the spectacle of a specialist in
>>topology who blundered about in molecular biology.
>
>He didn't do anything in molecular biology AFAIK, but he could have
>considering his knowledge of differential topology. In any case what
>matters here is his knowledge of philosophy, and by it, I guess, he
>falsified progressivist Darwinism. So then he should be congratulated.
>
>Nando
--
Neil W Rickert
>c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>>>> The real irony, though, is that we
>>>>were treated for several years to the spectacle of a specialist in
>>>>topology who blundered about in molecular biology.
>>>He didn't do anything in molecular biology AFAIK, but he could have
>>>considering his knowledge of differential topology. In any case what
>>>matters here is his knowledge of philosophy, and by it, I guess, he
>>>falsified progressivist Darwinism. So then he should be congratulated.
>>That sound you hear is the whoosh as the reference goes completely
>>over Nando's head.
>What reference? Your homepage? Don't let your nerdiness get in the way
>of making a clear argument Richard.
Nando thereby confirms Richard's diagnosis.
Vincent Maycock
<and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92r32k$mhb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
snip
> > >Biochemistry has not been kind to Darwinism. I see why you want to
> > >pretend molecular biology does not exist.
> >
> > Yes, its the Modern Synthesis which gave rise to Neo-Darwinism.
> > I thought you thought that was a bad thing?
>
> Most of biochemistry was discovered after the "modern synthesis".
Hey, Andy! How's it going, man? I was wondering, were you aware that the
existence of suffering refutes Christianity?
--
Vince
thewilkins
Well, if a non-expert claims authority about something and then proceeds
to demonstrate a lack of understanding of that topic, it's pretty
persuasive to me. I've read an enormous amount of evolutionary biology
and philosophy of biology and science and I can state that to my
apprehension evolutionary biology is very far from being a "philosophic
tenet masquerading in scientific garb". That Smith thinks otherwise
shows that what he is responding to is not the science. Perhaps it's the
popularised versions of someone else, but it isn't the swcience.
--
John Wilkins at home
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Nando Ronteltap
My diagnosis of nerdinessness still stands.
Nando
and...@my-deja.com
That's the ultimate defense of Darwinism: "Biochemistry has nothing to
say about Darwinism"!
Perhaps you don't think logic has anything to say about Darwinism
either.
Simply put, Darwinism is beyond reproach!
Vincent Maycock
<and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92qu9m$iki$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
snip
> > Oh, Lordy, Lordy, it was a blessing that my coffee cup was empty. I
> > suppose that they are particularly useful in determining what proteins
> > are made of. Chortle, snort, chuckle.
>
> Biochemistry has not been kind to Darwinism. I see why you want to
> pretend molecular biology does not exist.
Biochemical evidence shows that common ancestry has occurred. The existence
of suffering refutes Christianity, as well. In general, I would advise you
to return to posting semi-childish ideas about political topics. If you
continue to post ideas about creationism, which has long since been
disproven (as even your brother Roger will tell you), you will end up
humiliated like some of the other recent creationist posters that have
appeared at this newsgroup. Understand?
--
Vince
Laurence A. Moran
Richard, are you okay?
Do you realize that you are trying to carry on a conversation with Andy
and Nando? You usually don't stoop so low. Are all of the other threads
so bad that you're getting bored?
Get a grip.
Larry Moran
Neil W Rickert
> Neil W Rickert <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>> and...@my-deja.com writes:
>> >Biochemistry has not been kind to Darwinism. I see why you want to
>> >pretend molecular biology does not exist.
>> Biochemistry has nothing to say about Darwinism. It might be
>> relevant to neo-Darwinism, but not to Darwinism. Or don't you
>> understand the difference?
>That's the ultimate defense of Darwinism: "Biochemistry has nothing to
>say about Darwinism"!
>Perhaps you don't think logic has anything to say about Darwinism
>either.
>Simply put, Darwinism is beyond reproach!
That is not something I would expect you to say. Nor is it
anything I could agree with.
Darwinism can be tested on the evidence, as with any other theory.
But Darwinism is a theory of the origin of the species, and should be
tested with evidence related to evolution of species.
Unike neo-Darwinism, it is not a theory of gene substitution.
Nando Ronteltap
You are a racist, or racialist to be nice, are you not? That interests
me, it would be good if you expressed your main beliefs in so far as
you are able to express them. I don't mean to say you are incapable of
expressing your main beliefs, but just that is hard to do for anyone.
I assure you that anyone attacking your main beliefs without due
respect for your emotion tied to them will be dealt with by me or
anyone that happens to believe in freedom of speech.
Nando
Jonathan Stone
Perhaps Richard is having, mmm, teething troubles getting used to
another millennium. No straight lines. no grist for his mill.
>Get a grip.
Woudln't a gaffer be more appropriate?
Mark VandeWettering
>In light of the hysteria in this thread, one could hardly question the
>relevance and impact of Dr. Smith's observation. Does anyone have an
>intelligent criticism of it?
Does Dr. Smith have an argument? An observation? Something worth
discussing? He apparently agrees with some unnamed biochemist
that Darwinism is little more than a cosmogenetic myth. That
statement requires a bit more backing up to be viewed as more than
a (misguided) personal opinion.
>Andy
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Vincent Maycock
"Nando Ronteltap" <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote in message
news:no525tgnhcvfu9qf3...@4ax.com...
> "Vincent Maycock" <maycock...@andrews.edu> wrote:
> ><and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92r32k$mhb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> >snip
> >
> >> > >Biochemistry has not been kind to Darwinism. I see why you want to
> >> > >pretend molecular biology does not exist.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, its the Modern Synthesis which gave rise to Neo-Darwinism.
> >> > I thought you thought that was a bad thing?
> >>
> >> Most of biochemistry was discovered after the "modern synthesis".
> >
> >Hey, Andy! How's it going, man? I was wondering, were you aware that the
> >existence of suffering refutes Christianity?
>
> You are a racist, or racialist to be nice, are you not?
No, racists are inferior. I believe that all people (other than racists) are
equal, as I have stated previously on numerous occasions.
>That interests
> me, it would be good if you expressed your main beliefs in so far as
> you are able to express them. I don't mean to say you are incapable of
> expressing your main beliefs, but just that is hard to do for anyone.
> I assure you that anyone attacking your main beliefs without due
> respect for your emotion tied to them will be dealt with by me or
> anyone that happens to believe in freedom of speech.
Were *you* aware that the existence of suffering refutes Christianity,
Nando?
--
Vince
Nando Ronteltap
Nando Ronteltap
Yes I am aware of that refutation by the highly esteemed neo-darwinist
(and also of much use to racialists) professor Dawkins. I think his
refutation is shit, I'm sorry. But again, I assure you I will use no
such language if you express your main beliefs here and now on
talk.origins, and I warn others not to do that because I will sanction
reprisal like mailbombing, letters to providers, namecalling etc.
Nando
Vincent Maycock
snip
> >Were *you* aware that the existence of suffering refutes Christianity,
> >Nando?
>
> Yes I am aware of that refutation by the highly esteemed neo-darwinist
> (and also of much use to racialists) professor Dawkins. I think his
> refutation is shit, I'm sorry.
Why do you think this refutation is ridiculous, Nando?
>But again, I assure you I will use no
> such language if you express your main beliefs here and now on
> talk.origins, and I warn others not to do that because I will sanction
> reprisal like mailbombing, letters to providers, namecalling etc.
What are you talking about, man? What specific beliefs are you wondering
about?
--
Vince
and...@my-deja.com
And you don't think biochemistry is related to "evolution of species"???
Under evolution, the cells had to evolve too. If Darwinism can't
explain cell evolution, then it can't explain anything else either.
Nando Ronteltap
>"Nando Ronteltap" <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote in message
>news:kj725t84fliqvbrpq...@4ax.com...
>
>snip
>
>> >Were *you* aware that the existence of suffering refutes Christianity,
>> >Nando?
>>
>> Yes I am aware of that refutation by the highly esteemed neo-darwinist
>> (and also of much use to racialists) professor Dawkins. I think his
>> refutation is shit, I'm sorry.
>
>Why do you think this refutation is ridiculous, Nando?
Because they are full of arrogance and greed IMO. But hey, don't be
afraid to express your main beliefs, I will not be like that with you.
>>But again, I assure you I will use no
>> such language if you express your main beliefs here and now on
>> talk.origins, and I warn others not to do that because I will sanction
>> reprisal like mailbombing, letters to providers, namecalling etc.
>
>What are you talking about, man? What specific beliefs are you wondering
>about?
Your main beliefs brother, those that you hold to be main.
Nando
Vincent Maycock
<and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92r9ap$r24$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <92r5m5$i...@euclid.cs.niu.edu>,
> Neil W Rickert <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
> > and...@my-deja.com writes:
> > > Neil W Rickert <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
> > >> and...@my-deja.com writes:
> >
> > >> >Biochemistry has not been kind to Darwinism. I see why you want
> to
> > >> >pretend molecular biology does not exist.
> >
> > >> Biochemistry has nothing to say about Darwinism. It might be
> > >> relevant to neo-Darwinism, but not to Darwinism. Or don't you
> > >> understand the difference?
> >
> > >That's the ultimate defense of Darwinism: "Biochemistry has nothing
> to
> > >say about Darwinism"!
> >
> > >Perhaps you don't think logic has anything to say about Darwinism
> > >either.
> >
> > >Simply put, Darwinism is beyond reproach!
> >
> > That is not something I would expect you to say. Nor is it
> > anything I could agree with.
> >
> > Darwinism can be tested on the evidence, as with any other theory.
> > But Darwinism is a theory of the origin of the species, and should be
> > tested with evidence related to evolution of species.
>
> And you don't think biochemistry is related to "evolution of species"???
Biochemistry is as much related to the evolution of species as the fact that
the existence of suffering refutes Christianity is related to the
theism/atheism debate.
> Under evolution, the cells had to evolve too. If Darwinism can't
> explain cell evolution, then it can't explain anything else either.
There is no reason to think that Darwinism can't explain the evolution of
cell characteristics.
--
Vince
Vincent Maycock
> "Vincent Maycock" <maycock...@andrews.edu> wrote:
> >"Nando Ronteltap" <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote in message
> >news:kj725t84fliqvbrpq...@4ax.com...
> >
> >snip
> >
> >> >Were *you* aware that the existence of suffering refutes Christianity,
> >> >Nando?
> >>
> >> Yes I am aware of that refutation by the highly esteemed neo-darwinist
> >> (and also of much use to racialists) professor Dawkins. I think his
> >> refutation is shit, I'm sorry.
> >
> >Why do you think this refutation is ridiculous, Nando?
>
> Because they are full of arrogance and greed IMO.
Who is "they," Nando? You sound really confused.
> But hey, don't be
> afraid to express your main beliefs, I will not be like that with you.
I'm not afraid to express any of my beliefs. Where did you get this idea
from?
> >>But again, I assure you I will use no
> >> such language if you express your main beliefs here and now on
> >> talk.origins, and I warn others not to do that because I will sanction
> >> reprisal like mailbombing, letters to providers, namecalling etc.
> >
> >What are you talking about, man? What specific beliefs are you wondering
> >about?
>
> Your main beliefs brother, those that you hold to be main.
Name, the subject, and I'll describe my beliefs. Since you seem rather
reticient to name a subject, I will randomly select a subject and describe
my beliefs on the subject: the subject I will select is "race and IQ." I
think there is some reason to think that the black-white gap in IQ scores
has a genetic component. I have discussed this at some length on this
newsgroup, and a deja search will provide more information about this.
--
Vince
WickedDyno
Ronteltap <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
Haven't you heard? Nerds are going to inherit the earth.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
WickedDyno
Ronteltap <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> >On 1 Jan 2001 17:49:53 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
> ><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>
> >>Huh? It does actually, you are the one that's really stupid I'm sure.
> >
> >The bizarre thing is that you probably believe that it does.
>
> Yes! Since molecular biologists use differential topology, someone
> wellversed in differential topology could be a good molecular
> biologists.
Emphasis on *could be*, and not without any training in the field of
molecular biology.
WickedDyno
Ronteltap <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> >On 1 Jan 2001 15:54:50 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
> ><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
> >
> >>c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> >>>On 1 Jan 2001 14:1224 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
> >>><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Alebraic and differential topology are of of use in molecular biology.
> >>>
> >>>Oh, Lordy, Lordy, it was a blessing that my coffee cup was empty. I
> >>>suppose that they are particularly useful in determining what proteins
> >>>are made of. Chortle, snort, chuckle.
> >>
> >>You should do a websearch on "differential topology" and "molecular
> >>biology".
> >
> >Chuckles, you are really stupid. The fact that results from field A
> >are of use in field B does not in any imply that a specialist in field
> >A understands much about field B.
>
> Huh? It does actually, you are the one that's really stupid I'm sure.
Nonsense. Just because Algebra, invented by the ancient greeks and
arabs, is useful in computer science, doesn't mean that anyone who knows
algebra well knows anything about computer science.
WickedDyno
Ronteltap <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
Umm, most of us are scientists or science enthusiasts, Nando. Why you
think that the appelation "nerd" is one we've never heard before, or
consider particularly offensive, is beyond my ken.
David C. Fritzinger
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <92qhf5$b09$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
> "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> >
> > Schlafly <roger...@deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:92ot2l$ram$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > Jonathan Stone <jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> > > news:92op7q$epp$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
> > > > >I have a friend who has degrees in literature, art,
> > > > >and music. He thinks mathematics is totally wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Mathematics is a deductive system. if your friend can
> > > > find bugs in proofs of theorems, more power to him.
> > >
> > > That's right. You are allowed to criticize math, even if you don't
> > > have a degree in it.
>
> > Yes, but only as long as you have something interesting to say.
> Otherwise,
> > you'd better shut up.
>
> Leo, we have free speech in the US. Dr. Smith can criticize Darwinism,
> whether others find it interesting or not.
>
> In light of the hysteria in this thread, one could hardly question the
> relevance and impact of Dr. Smith's observation. Does anyone have an
> intelligent criticism of it?
Yes. Despite his credentials in other fields, he obviously knows little
about biology. That makes his criticism worthless. Sort of like me, a
molecular biologist, criticizing the latest theories in aerodynamics.
Dave Fritzinger
David C. Fritzinger
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
And since he clearly understands little biology, his "criticism" is also
unpersuasive.
David C. Fritzinger
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3a50e42a...@news.SullyButtes.net>,
> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> > On 1 Jan 2001 14:12:24 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
> > <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
> >
> > >and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > >>Wolfgang Smith graduated at age 18 from Cornell University with a
> B.A.
> > >>in mathematics, physics, and philosophy. Two years later he took an
> > >>M.S. in theoretical physics at Purdue University, following which he
> > >>joined the aerodynamics group at Bell Aircraft Corporation. He was
> the
> > >>first to investigate the effect of a foreign gas on aerodynamic
> > >>heating, and his papers on the effect of diffusion fields provided
> the
> > >>key to the solution of the re-entry problem for space flight. After
> > >>receiving a Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University, Dr. Smith
> > >>held professorial positions at M.I.T., U.C.L.A., and Oregon State
> > >>University till his retirement in 1992. He has published
> extensively on
> > >>mathematical topics relating to algebraic and differential topology.
> > >
> > >Alebraic and differential topology are of of use in molecular
> biology.
> >
> > Oh, Lordy, Lordy, it was a blessing that my coffee cup was empty. I
> > suppose that they are particularly useful in determining what proteins
> > are made of. Chortle, snort, chuckle.
>
> Biochemistry has not been kind to Darwinism. I see why you want to
> pretend molecular biology does not exist.
I disagree. As a molecular biologist, molecular biology has been extremely
kind to the ToE. Just look how the nested hierarchy of DNA and protein
sequences matches the nested hierarchy of morphological features. Again,
Andy shows his willful ignorance.
Paul J. Gans
> In article <_hN36.28$Q02...@typhoon.nyu.edu>,
> Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
> [... snip Schlafly text ]
>>
>>I have a friend who has degrees in literature, art,
>>and music. He thinks mathematics is totally wrong.
>>
> Mathematics is a deductive system. if your friend can
> find bugs in proofs of theorems, more power to him.
> Or you mean, like, he doesn't buy the axiom of choice?
Nah. Just doesn't like math. But he's good in his
fields.
----- Paul J. Gans
Richard Harter
(Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>Richard, are you okay?
>
>Do you realize that you are trying to carry on a conversation with Andy
>and Nando? You usually don't stoop so low. Are all of the other threads
>so bad that you're getting bored?
>
>Get a grip.
Slumming, just slumming. I was entranced by the delicious inanity of
one of Nando's remarks and couldn't resist throwing in a few barbs. I
wouldn't characterize it as carrying on a conversation though. It's
more on the order of holding a chest beating competition with demented
chihuahuas.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
Leviticus summarized in one sentence -
There are things man is not meant to know.
Nando Ronteltap
>"Nando Ronteltap" <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote in message
>news:30a25t85li77tn458...@4ax.com...
>> "Vincent Maycock" <maycock...@andrews.edu> wrote:
>> >"Nando Ronteltap" <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote in message
>> >news:kj725t84fliqvbrpq...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >snip
>> >
>> >> >Were *you* aware that the existence of suffering refutes Christianity,
>> >> >Nando?
>> >>
>> >> Yes I am aware of that refutation by the highly esteemed neo-darwinist
>> >> (and also of much use to racialists) professor Dawkins. I think his
>> >> refutation is shit, I'm sorry.
>> >
>> >Why do you think this refutation is ridiculous, Nando?
>>
>> Because they are full of arrogance and greed IMO.
>
>Who is "they," Nando? You sound really confused.
The beliefs held by Dawkins.
>> But hey, don't be
>> afraid to express your main beliefs, I will not be like that with you.
>
>I'm not afraid to express any of my beliefs. Where did you get this idea
>from?
It's normal to be afraid of that Vincent, that you are not disturbs
me. You must be one of those people that puts their beliefs out there,
no matter how much hurt it entails.
>> >>But again, I assure you I will use no
>> >> such language if you express your main beliefs here and now on
>> >> talk.origins, and I warn others not to do that because I will sanction
>> >> reprisal like mailbombing, letters to providers, namecalling etc.
>> >
>> >What are you talking about, man? What specific beliefs are you wondering
>> >about?
>>
>> Your main beliefs brother, those that you hold to be main.
>
>Name, the subject, and I'll describe my beliefs. Since you seem rather
>reticient to name a subject, I will randomly select a subject and describe
>my beliefs on the subject: the subject I will select is "race and IQ." I
>think there is some reason to think that the black-white gap in IQ scores
>has a genetic component. I have discussed this at some length on this
>newsgroup, and a deja search will provide more information about this.
Ok good, that's a start. Race and IQ. You know you say randomness.
Would it interest you to know that people investigating "artificial
intelligence" place their whole effort on the operation of randomness?
Randomness as the basis of intelligence, hmmmmm. That should give you
some thought.
But also you mention race.
Righteously it says in the ten commandments, thou shalt make no statue
of God and worship such statue. And I say, you should make no such
image in your mind like that also. So God is a being I value, which I
should neither deny or attribute material attributes to, except in
expression of love, but that's besides the point. (Oh God thou artst
so big!!!!! :-) ). So what does this that have to do with race?
Prejudice Vincent, prejudice. As I'm not prejudicial in attributing
material properties to God, I am not prejudicial in attributing
importance to material properties. So if you look carefully you will
find that race is not that important, but that beliefs about race are
terribly important. You have said black and intelligence, so then you
would have to make a *causal* link between black color and
intelligence. It is terribly important that you do that, because
beliefs about race are terribly important, and race I assure you is
not.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>In article <kl325t8e8bh3dtov0...@4ax.com>, Nando
>Ronteltap <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>
>> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> >On 1 Jan 2001 17:49:53 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
>> ><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>>
>> >>Huh? It does actually, you are the one that's really stupid I'm sure.
>> >
>> >The bizarre thing is that you probably believe that it does.
>>
>> Yes! Since molecular biologists use differential topology, someone
>> wellversed in differential topology could be a good molecular
>> biologists.
>
>Emphasis on *could be*, and not without any training in the field of
>molecular biology.
No, emphasis on well-versed in differential topology. He already has
part of the training for molecular biology.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>In article <jf725tclkpgp66fof...@4ax.com>, Nando
>Ronteltap <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>
>> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <92qts1$tcj$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
>> >Laurence A. Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> >>In article <3a5106fb...@news.SullyButtes.net>,
>> >>Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Richard, are you okay?
>> >>
>> >>Do you realize that you are trying to carry on a conversation with Andy
>> >>and Nando? You usually don't stoop so low. Are all of the other threads
>> >>so bad that you're getting bored?
>> >
>> >Perhaps Richard is having, mmm, teething troubles getting used to
>> >another millennium. No straight lines. no grist for his mill.
>> >
>> >
>> >>Get a grip.
>> >
>> >Woudln't a gaffer be more appropriate?
>>
>> Nerdiness and nerdiness again. QED
>
>Umm, most of us are scientists or science enthusiasts, Nando. Why you
>think that the appelation "nerd" is one we've never heard before, or
>consider particularly offensive, is beyond my ken.
AAAAAAAAAAAAH HELP! HELP! NERDS! NERDS!
Make a point already nerdbrain!
Nando
and...@my-deja.com
"Vincent Maycock" <maycock...@andrews.edu> wrote:
> <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92r9ap$r24
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[snip]
> > Under evolution, the cells had to evolve too. If Darwinism can't
> > explain cell evolution, then it can't explain anything else either.
>
> There is no reason to think that Darwinism can't explain the
evolution of
> cell characteristics.
Darwinism can't explain it. Your compound negative above merely
illustrates this.
Ashland Henderson
> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> >On 1 Jan 2001 15:54:50 -0500, Nando Ronteltap> >>>On 1 Jan 2001 14:1224 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
> >>><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Alebraic and differential topology are of of use in molecular biology.
> >>>
> >>>Oh, Lordy, Lordy, it was a blessing that my coffee cup was empty. I
> >>>suppose that they are particularly useful in determining what proteins
> >>>are made of. Chortle, snort, chuckle.
> >>
> >>biology".
> >
> >Chuckles, you are really stupid. The fact that results from field A
> >are of use in field B does not in any imply that a specialist in field
> >A understands much about field B.
>
No. It doesn't actually. Can you spot the flaw in logic in the following:
1) I am an expert in differential topology.
2) Molecular biologists use differential topology.
3) Therefore I am an expert in molecular biology.
> > The real irony, though, is that we
> >were treated for several years to the spectacle of a specialist in
> >topology who blundered about in molecular biology.
>
> He didn't do anything in molecular biology AFAIK, but he could have
> considering his knowledge of differential topology. In any case what
> matters here is his knowledge of philosophy, and by it, I guess, he
> falsified progressivist Darwinism. So then he should be congratulated.
Um, philosophy does not falsify much of anything. To falsify something
takes evidence.
Adam Marczyk
<and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92rf85$vhg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <uV946.222246$vc3.37...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Vincent Maycock" <maycock...@andrews.edu> wrote:
> > <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92r9ap$r24
> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> [snip]
> > > Under evolution, the cells had to evolve too. If Darwinism can't
> > > explain cell evolution, then it can't explain anything else either.
> >
> > There is no reason to think that Darwinism can't explain the
> evolution of
> > cell characteristics.
>
> Darwinism can't explain it.
Yes, it can.
> Your compound negative above merely
> illustrates this.
And what's the alternative theory that explains it better? Does it involve
at any point anything that boils down to "Goddidit" or require the action of
a HYPE?
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Neil W Rickert
> Neil W Rickert <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>> and...@my-deja.com writes:
>> >Simply put, Darwinism is beyond reproach!
>> That is not something I would expect you to say. Nor is it
>> anything I could agree with.
>> Darwinism can be tested on the evidence, as with any other theory.
>> But Darwinism is a theory of the origin of the species, and should be
>> tested with evidence related to evolution of species.
>And you don't think biochemistry is related to "evolution of species"???
Sure. But the criteria that distinguish between species are not
primarily biochemical criteria.
Nando Ronteltap
>In article <1v425toqv1uf0mnde...@4ax.com>, Nando
>Ronteltap <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>
>> Neil W Rickert <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Nando Ronteltap <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> writes:
>> >>c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> >>><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>> The real irony, though, is that we
>> >>>>>were treated for several years to the spectacle of a specialist in
>> >>>>>topology who blundered about in molecular biology.
>> >
>> >>>>He didn't do anything in molecular biology AFAIK, but he could have
>> >>>>considering his knowledge of differential topology. In any case what
>> >>>>matters here is his knowledge of philosophy, and by it, I guess, he
>> >>>>falsified progressivist Darwinism. So then he should be congratulated.
>> >
>> >>>That sound you hear is the whoosh as the reference goes completely
>> >>>over Nando's head.
>> >
>> >>What reference? Your homepage? Don't let your nerdiness get in the way
>> >>of making a clear argument Richard.
>> >
>> >Nando thereby confirms Richard's diagnosis.
>>
>> My diagnosis of nerdinessness still stands.
>
>Haven't you heard? Nerds are going to inherit the earth.
The meek are going to inherit. So if Richard will demonstrate meekness
in stead of nerdiness he will inherit.
Nando
and...@my-deja.com
"Vincent Maycock" <maycock...@andrews.edu> wrote:
> Name, the subject, and I'll describe my beliefs. Since you seem rather
> reticient to name a subject, I will randomly select a subject and
describe
> my beliefs on the subject: the subject I will select is "race and
IQ." I
> think there is some reason to think that the black-white gap in IQ
scores
> has a genetic component. I have discussed this at some length on this
> newsgroup, and a deja search will provide more information about this.
The textbook at issue in the Scopes trial declared that Caucasians were
superior, due to evolution, to those of African descent.
I note your view above that "there is some reason to think that the
black-white gap in IQ scores has a genetic component." Was the Scopes
textbook in part correct?
Vincent Maycock
<and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92rf85$vhg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <uV946.222246$vc3.37...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Vincent Maycock" <maycock...@andrews.edu> wrote:
> > <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92r9ap$r24
> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> [snip]
> > > Under evolution, the cells had to evolve too. If Darwinism can't
> > > explain cell evolution, then it can't explain anything else either.
> >
> > There is no reason to think that Darwinism can't explain the
> evolution of
> > cell characteristics.
>
> Darwinism can't explain it.
There are no characteristics which Darwinism can't explain, in the same way
that there are no characteristics of the existence of suffering which
Christianity is able to adequately explain.
> Your compound negative above merely
> illustrates this.
That's more like it. That's the "Andy" I remember from before: childishly
foolish, but not...*creationist.* Again, I assure you, if you continue to
post ideas in support of creationism, you will be thoroughly refuted in a
very short time-span.
--
Vince
rich hammett
> Adam Noel Harris <ad...@stanford.edu.XX> wrote in message
> news:slrn94vdde...@elaine27.Stanford.EDU...
>> I always find it amusing that before an authority is quoted to dismiss
>> evolution, an extensive list of degrees and qualifications is given. Why
>> be so impressed with this?
> Apparently it is what impresses you enough to consider him an "authority".
Roger, you are now engaging in meta-fallacies! You are indeed a unique
creature!
rich
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
Vincent Maycock
<and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92rh3i$149$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
No, there is no reason to think that Caucasians are superior to other races.
For example, East Asians have even higher IQs than Caucasians, while, as I
recall it, this textbook said that the Caucasians, and not the East Asians,
were the "highest" of all the races.
--
Vince
leonardo dasso
<and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92qulb$j1c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <92qhf5$b09$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
> "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> >
> > Schlafly <roger...@deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:92ot2l$ram$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > Jonathan Stone <jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> > > news:92op7q$epp$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
> > > > >and music. He thinks mathematics is totally wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Mathematics is a deductive system. if your friend can
> > > > find bugs in proofs of theorems, more power to him.
> > >
> > > have a degree in it.
>
> > Yes, but only as long as you have something interesting to say.
> Otherwise,
> > you'd better shut up.
>
> Leo, we have free speech in the US. Dr. Smith can criticize Darwinism,
> whether others find it interesting or not.
>
> In light of the hysteria in this thread, one could hardly question the
> relevance and impact of Dr. Smith's observation. Does anyone have an
> intelligent criticism of it?
>
>
>
>
Yes, it is above: if you dont have anything interesting to say, you'd better
shut up.
regards
leo
and...@my-deja.com
That's like saying the criteria that distinguish between matter are not
primarily molecular criteria.
Historical inability to look at the molecular level has been due to
technological shortcomings. Now, there is no excuse.
Mark VandeWettering
Now this isn't fair! If Andy is going to argue with Vince, there won't
be anybody for me to root for!
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Schlafly
news:t52i40l...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> I always find it amusing that before an authority is quoted to dismiss
> >> evolution, an extensive list of degrees and qualifications is given.
Why
> >> be so impressed with this?
> > Apparently it is what impresses you enough to consider him an
"authority".
> Roger, you are now engaging in meta-fallacies! You are indeed a unique
> creature!
I have it on authority from t.o regulars that I am not smart enough to
engage in meta-fallacies. <g>
WickedDyno
Ronteltap <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> >In article <kl325t8e8bh3dtov0...@4ax.com>, Nando
> >Ronteltap <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> >> >On 1 Jan 2001 17:49:53 -0500, Nando Ronteltap
> >> ><n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Huh? It does actually, you are the one that's really stupid I'm sure.
> >> >
> >> >The bizarre thing is that you probably believe that it does.
> >>
> >> Yes! Since molecular biologists use differential topology, someone
> >> wellversed in differential topology could be a good molecular
> >> biologists.
> >
> >Emphasis on *could be*, and not without any training in the field of
> >molecular biology.
>
> No, emphasis on well-versed in differential topology. He already has
> part of the training for molecular biology.
Does he? I noticed nothing in his list of degrees about biochemistry.
Unless you're making the argument that because molecular biology at
times uses techniques drawn from the abstract theorems of differential
topology, anyone who knows differential topology somehow has knowledge
about biochemistry.
If that is the argument you're trying to make, stop. I can already feel
a luser-induced headache coming on.
WickedDyno
Ronteltap <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
Oh my. What are you, in 7th grade? Because you're certainly acting like
it. *condescending chuckle*
hrgr...@my-deja.com
You mean we should be able to tell, after sequencing the total DNA of
two organisms, if they are able to interbreed - only by looking at the
the DNA analysis ?
Embryology, molecular biology, and biochemistry have made enormous
steps forward, but *this* is still utopia.
HRG.
Adam Marczyk
I'll take a stab at it.
[from the cited website]
> As a major example I would mention the Darwinian theory of evolution,
which (contrary > to official belief) is not in fact a scientific hypothesis
corroborated by empirical facts, but > a philosophic tenet masquerading in
scientific garb. As one molecular biologist has put it, > Darwinism is
ultimately "no more and no less than the great cosmogenetic myth of the
> twentieth century."
So we have a) there is no evidence for evolution and b) evolution is really
philosophy anyway, not science. Just time-tested creationist canards, here.
a) Transitional fossil series, homologies in living organisms, the sorting
of the fossil record and the twin nested hierarchy of classification are all
strong evidences in favor of evolution.
b) Evolution is a theory formulated to explain some feature of the natural
world (in this case, the development of life). It uses only naturalistic
assumptions, is based on empirical evidence (see (a)) and generates
predictions that can be tested. Looks like science to me.
Ashland Henderson
> In article <92rgcg$j...@euclid.cs.niu.edu>,
> Neil W Rickert <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
> > and...@my-deja.com writes:
> > > Neil W Rickert <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
> > >> and...@my-deja.com writes:
> >
> > >> >Simply put, Darwinism is beyond reproach!
> >
> > >> That is not something I would expect you to say. Nor is it
> > >> anything I could agree with.
> >
> > >> Darwinism can be tested on the evidence, as with any other theory.
> > >> But Darwinism is a theory of the origin of the species, and should
> be
> > >> tested with evidence related to evolution of species.
> >
> > >And you don't think biochemistry is related to "evolution of
> species"???
> >
> > Sure. But the criteria that distinguish between species are not
> > primarily biochemical criteria.
>
> That's like saying the criteria that distinguish between matter are not
> primarily molecular criteria.
Nope. It's like saying that the criteria that distinguish between
species are not primarily molecular criteria. They may be in
time, but at this stage of our technology, they are not.
> Historical inability to look at the molecular level has been due to
> technological shortcomings. Now, there is no excuse.
Be careful, you might get what you wish for. Increased knowledge
of the world has not traditionally been good to ancient mythology.
Boikat
>
> In article <92qts1$tcj$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
> Laurence A. Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >In article <3a5106fb...@news.SullyButtes.net>,
> >Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
> >Richard, are you okay?
> >
> >Do you realize that you are trying to carry on a conversation with Andy
> >and Nando? You usually don't stoop so low. Are all of the other threads
> >so bad that you're getting bored?
>
> Perhaps Richard is having, mmm, teething troubles getting used to
> another millennium. No straight lines. no grist for his mill.
With andy and Nando, it's just a matter if
thyme....
Boikat
Adam Noel Harris
:rich hammett <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote in message
Well, not wittingly.
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Adam Noel Harris
:In article <ajd25t874lq8mocat...@4ax.com>, Nando
:Ronteltap <n.ron...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
[...]
:> No, emphasis on well-versed in differential topology. He already has
:> part of the training for molecular biology.
:
:Does he? I noticed nothing in his list of degrees about biochemistry.
:
:Unless you're making the argument that because molecular biology at
:times uses techniques drawn from the abstract theorems of differential
:topology, anyone who knows differential topology somehow has knowledge
:about biochemistry.
Can someone help me out? I'm a molecular biologist, and I don't even know
what differential topology _is_. Before anyone important finds me out,
perhaps I could get a brief lesson in it?
:If that is the argument you're trying to make, stop. I can already feel
:a luser-induced headache coming on.
-Adam
David C. Fritzinger
Next time Andy accuses "Darwinists" of name calling, someone
point him to this post, or, for that matter, almost any post by Nando.
Dave Fritzinger
>
> Nando
David C. Fritzinger
Actually, I think what Neil was saying is that the biochemistry of
most species is very similar. For example, you could look at the
same type of cell from many different species (say epidermal
cells), and their biochemistry would be almost indistinguishable.
In addition, the basic biochemistry of most life forms (with the
exception of extremeophiles) is very similar. That is why studies on
E. coli and yeast are so valuable. So, closer examination just
shows that most life is similar, further supporting common
descent. Gee, I guess you lose again, Andy.
Dave Fritzinger